ChaoticMusings

Barksdale wrote:

---

Anonymous wrote:

---

Maddog wrote:

---

 

 I understand the context. 

 

I also think anyone who thinks that flag is racist is the fucking problem..

---

 That's a strange choice of words. Nobody in their right mind would claim that an inanimate piece of cloth can be racist. It's the motive behind its use that's the issue.

---

 Right, it's the association which has arisen and persisted over the course of recent times which is the issue.

I think most people would like the English flag to be reclaimed and be a symbol of national unity. I don't think we are there yet as a society.  

---

 You're not helping.  

Maddog wrote:

---

Barksdale wrote:

---

Maddog wrote:

How do you objectively measure rhetoric?  

Who gets to define "rhetoric"? 

---

 Lol, wut? I know that you know that I know that you know the answer to this question.

UK and US societies have settled on methods to sort the quality of arguments which are subjective by using critical reasoning and logic.

So, the argument "boats should be banned as the Earth is flat so you can sail right off the edge of it" may sound subjectively fabulous and make sense to the person making the statement. However, even though the conclusion is logically consistent (you could sail off the edge of the Earth if it was flat) the argument is flawed as the premise is false (that the Earth is flat.) In addition the proposed solution is also unreasonable (banning boats) as it is disproportionate which further undermines its quality. Social issues are more difficult to asses as there are more grey areas than say matters involving the physical world so the ability to handle nuance is necessary. 

Who gets to define what rhetoric we listen to and are convinced by? The citizens of a society by means of public debates, politics and judicial processes mainly. We decided to resolve our disputes in this way as it was better than one group killing another due to a difference of beliefs. Sounds like the right approach to me.  

---

 Social issues are a bit different.  

You don't get to call Charlie's words rhetoric just because you don't agree with them..

I mean you are free to call them rhetoric and I'm free to say you're absolutely wrong. It's just that your calling it rhetoric doesn't make it so. Nor does a majority calling it rhetoric make it so. 

---

 "Rhetoric is the art of using language, argumentation, and communication effectively to persuade, inform, or motivate an audience. It is a historical and complex academic discipline that studies the techniques behind persuasive communication, dating back to the ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Plato. While the term can sometimes have negative connotations, implying insincere language, its formal study focuses on skillful and ethical use of communication for various purposes." - that's the AI summary from Google Search.

I call it rhetoric because it fits the definition. What would you call it?

Maddog wrote:

---

Barksdale wrote:

---

Anonymous wrote:

---

Maddog wrote:

---

 

 I understand the context. 

 

I also think anyone who thinks that flag is racist is the fucking problem..

---

 That's a strange choice of words. Nobody in their right mind would claim that an inanimate piece of cloth can be racist. It's the motive behind its use that's the issue.

---

 Right, it's the association which has arisen and persisted over the course of recent times which is the issue.

I think most people would like the English flag to be reclaimed and be a symbol of national unity. I don't think we are there yet as a society.  

---

 You're not helping.  

---

 I'll be the judge of that. 

Syl wrote:

---

Maddog wrote:

---

Fluffy wrote:

---

Maddog wrote:

---

I did find something Kirk said that could be racist..


“unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things.”

---

 Er, no..I'm glad you are engaging more with Avon on this but why are you ignoring the quotes that offended people. and going for mild mannered quotes like that? Oh, I've just given the reason why.

Why don't you try and objectively explain why the quote below isn't  racist? 

Happening all the time in urban America, prowling blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.”

– The Charlie Kirk Show, May 19th, 2023

---

 That quote was actually Biden.  😉

 

 

Here is the clip of your quote. 

 

Tell me where the inaccuracies are.

Charlie Kirk goes on unhinged racist rant: "Prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people -- that’s a fact" | Media Matters for America https://share.google/gprcQXdgBwRYiDyU2

 

 

 

 

---

 Charlie Kirk goes on unhinged racist rant: "Prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people -- that’s a fact" | Media Matters for America

He says it at 2.40, and again at 3.35.

---

 I know he said it.

 

Was it inaccurate in the context of the conversation about crime in our country?

‘By the way, I would be more willing to engage, if your posts were far more succinct and not ginormous  cut a d paste of verbal diarrhea.. ‘

🤦🏻‍♀️ FFS, Dawg - be a little more tolerant. We each have our own individual way to express ourselves. I’d love to be much more succinct, but that particular skill is beyond me and I usually end up droning on forever. 

We also each have our own choice of whether to read and respond. Or not 🤷🏻‍♀️

Vam wrote:

---

‘By the way, I would be more willing to engage, if your posts were far more succinct and not ginormous  cut a d paste of verbal diarrhea.. ‘

🤦🏻‍♀️ FFS, Dawg - be a little more tolerant. We each have our own individual way to express ourselves. I’d love to be much more succinct, but that particular skill is beyond me and I usually end up droning on forever. 

We also each have our own choice of whether to read and respond. Or not 🤷🏻‍♀️

---

 She throws up 18 paragraphs of cut and paste coupled with overly dramatic misrepresentation of the facts. 

 

Sorry, not sorry. Get to the point, state the facts and be succinct..

 

I got shit to do..

Vam wrote:

---

Maddog wrote:

---

And I'll admit he should have dialed back the hyperbole..

Just state the facts. Stop with the inflammatory adjectives..

 

 

👏🏻👏🏻  I saw this emoji >> and thought of you 😂

---

 I don't doubt that a person who speaks a few hours a day in front of camera will eventually say something hyperbolic or over the top  especially on highly charged cultural issues..

 

Everyone has comments we want to take back..

If someone were to say there were (maybe still are?) roaming gangs of Pakistani grooming gangs roaming the streets of Rotherham, would that be racist, accurate, neither or both?

Maddog wrote:

---

If someone were to say there were (maybe still are?) roaming gangs of Pakistani grooming gangs roaming the streets of Rotherham, would that be racist, accurate, neither or both?

---

 It wouldn't be racist or accurate. 

Pakistani grooming gangs targeted the kids outside schools, in corner shops and taxi premises, specific places, no random roaming of streets.